So, Randy Olsen's ABT, or And, But, Therefore, approach to narrative structure, has to be one of the most influential things I have ever read about being a clear communicator. I really use it all the time, including if you've paid attention in many of my lectures. I'd like to explain in this clip, why I see it as so valuable. So, first, let's think about this. How is a prototypical research presentation structured? Well, it structure kind of looks something like this. As time goes on and as you move down, you start big with the big picture context, and significance. Then, you get into some background facts, and ultimately, hopefully, a hypothesis. You get into some methods about whatever this thing is that you're studying, and hopefully then get to some data. Those data lead to some interpretations of the data, the results, that ultimately lead you back out to something bigger, like impact or implications. At least that's what it ought to be in theory. Let's be honest. Most of the time, what you usually see is something like this. You start off, and you have a little bit of background and maybe some discussion of significance, and really quickly, you get into hypothesis and methods, and then it's just data, and maybe, if somebody would have remembered to save time, a little bit of interpretation and some implications at the end. That's not actually a really enjoyable experience which is why often scientific communications are just simply boring. Remember, narrative revolves around tension. You think you know what's going on, and then, over time, a narrative builds tension. You realize that there's a problem or an issue or something you don't know, and that tension is what draws you in. Then, you resolve that tension to a point where you know something more than you didn't before. So, the ABT story structure is built around that tension, right? You start with the And section. That's the setup, the background, the hypothesis. But the key here is the But, the but is that section of whatever you're saying, that defines the problem. The thing you don't know. The thing that is causing tension, that therefore leads you to the resolution. Now, when you apply ABT to science, which you recognize is that the And stuff is the background, the context. It's what is known about whatever the topic is. Then, you make this transition into the knowledge gap, that but we don't know this, or but this is the critical finding, or but this is what you need to pay attention to, and that transition into the But is the point at which you really capture the audience's attention about the scientific challenge, and when you do it right, it naturally leads to the Therefore, to the implications, to what needs to change in the world as a result of either defining the scientific problem or defining the scientific knowledge that we now have. So, here's an example. Sun exposure is dangerous, and sunscreen can protect you from that type of sun exposure. But, notice the tension, but, it wears off after time. Especially if you're swimming or wipe your skin. Therefore, you need to reapply sunscreen regularly in order to get the kind of sun protection that you want. Notice that the Therefore comes directly from the but. The But here is the tension, sunscreen will wear off. It can't protect you if it wears off. Therefore, you need to reapply it regularly in order to get the objective that you want, the protection. So, how do we use this kind of structure in practice? What I've found over the years that I've been using this structure, if the key is finding the But, finding what is the tension that I want to communicate to the audience about whatever the sciences that I'm talking about. What is the motivation for my research? Or what is the problem that needs to be solved? Or what is the new or critical piece of information that I want to make sure that the audience gets? In that sunscreen example, the critical piece of information is the idea that the sunscreen wears off. I want to make sure they get that because it naturally leads the implication that you need to reapply. The clearer you are about the But, the better. Because really, the But is usually tied to the key question that we've been talking about. Why should I care? Why should your audience care about whatever it is you're talking about? Once you know the But, then you can work backwards. What are the specific key facts or background that sets up the tension with the But? And, you can work forwards. What are the implications that flow naturally from the But? So, let me give you an example. Vitamin D is necessary for building and maintaining healthy bones, and you can get it through eating certain foods or through sunlight exposure. However, just a different word for But, most older adults don't get enough. As a result, many older adults should consider taking a supplement with Vitamin D. Notice the But. However, most older adults don't go to get enough. That's the critical point that I want to get across. That's the piece that I might be thinking my audience doesn't yet understand. Once I know that, I start by setting it up by making sure the people know why Vitamin D is important, and where they can get it, and it leads to the natural implication of, if they're not getting enough, they should take get more by taking a supplement. Note that when you do this kind of structure, often you find that certain facts don't fit, and you might feel, "Whoa! Wait a second." Then something's wrong. No, actually then something's right. These facts are true and important. They're just not relevant for this story. You may need to tell multiple stories, but this particular story isn't about those facts, and you have to be willing to let those go. To let go of facts that don't fit the particular story that you're telling. Why? Because the honest truth is, you can only tell one story at a time. So, if you're only going to get one story across, you want to tell it as cleanly, and simply as possible.
